IADR Abstract Archives
Survival of Conventional and Cantilevered Resin Bonded Prostheses - Systematic Review
Objectives: The objective of this review was to evaluate the Debonding rates of conventional and cantilevered resin bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs).
Methods: Search strategy - A literature search was conducted using a combination of electronic searches were performed in PUBMED (from 1966 - 2015), EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE databases. Additional hand searching was done on all available back volumes of The Journal of Prosthetic dentistry, Journal of Prosthodontics, Quintessence international and JADA.
Selection of Studies - This review included all clinical trials and excluded any reviews, case reports and in-vitro studies. Only studies evaluating both conventional and cantilevered RBFDP interventions were included in this review. Data extraction was done using data extraction forms by both the authors. Discrepancies in article inclusion were resolved by discussion with an independent moderator.
Results: The search strategy shortlisted 30 studies. These studies were reviewed in detail by both authors based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and only 6 studies could be included in this review. There was significant heterogeneity among the included studies and a meta-analyses could not be performed. The prospective and retrospective studies obtained were analysed. The most common complication was found to be debonding irrespective of prostheses design, choice of material or luting system, or preparation design, followed by a fracture of retainers. However, to our surprise, the cantilevered RBFDPs demonstrated a lower incidence of debonding and fractures compared to conventional RBFDPs.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the cantilevered RBFDPs appear to have better long term survival. This is attributed to the differential mobility of the supporting abutments. However, randomised controlled trials with long term follow up are required to strongly recommend the use of cantilever RBFDPs.
Methods: Search strategy - A literature search was conducted using a combination of electronic searches were performed in PUBMED (from 1966 - 2015), EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE databases. Additional hand searching was done on all available back volumes of The Journal of Prosthetic dentistry, Journal of Prosthodontics, Quintessence international and JADA.
Selection of Studies - This review included all clinical trials and excluded any reviews, case reports and in-vitro studies. Only studies evaluating both conventional and cantilevered RBFDP interventions were included in this review. Data extraction was done using data extraction forms by both the authors. Discrepancies in article inclusion were resolved by discussion with an independent moderator.
Results: The search strategy shortlisted 30 studies. These studies were reviewed in detail by both authors based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and only 6 studies could be included in this review. There was significant heterogeneity among the included studies and a meta-analyses could not be performed. The prospective and retrospective studies obtained were analysed. The most common complication was found to be debonding irrespective of prostheses design, choice of material or luting system, or preparation design, followed by a fracture of retainers. However, to our surprise, the cantilevered RBFDPs demonstrated a lower incidence of debonding and fractures compared to conventional RBFDPs.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the cantilevered RBFDPs appear to have better long term survival. This is attributed to the differential mobility of the supporting abutments. However, randomised controlled trials with long term follow up are required to strongly recommend the use of cantilever RBFDPs.
IMAGES
2631474_File000000.jpg
2631474_File000000.jpg